In September 2024, the now Maharashtra state minister Nitesh Rane threatened to kill Muslims inside mosques. Earlier this month, a few days after a mob in Maharashtra did attack a mosque, Rane joined the chorus of those demanding the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb. He said, “The government will do its part, while Hindutva outfits must do theirs. When Babri Masjid was being demolished, we did not sit and talk to each other. Our kar sevaks did what was appropriate".
In response, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also holds the home portfolio, observed, "Everyone has freedom of speech, but our freedom ends when we encroach upon the freedom of others".
But wait a minute, that doesn’t sound right.
Sorry, Fadnavis did say that but about the Ranveer Allahbadia controversy. With regard to the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb, Fadnavis has said, “It is unfortunate that the government has to take responsibility of protecting Aurangzeb’s grave despite his history of persecution.”
There is near unanimity in the reportage by media outlets about what happened in Nagpur soon after Rane’s speech. For instance, NDTV, Hindustan Times, BBC all report that the sequence of events was as follows: The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal held ‘protests’, burnt Aurangzeb’s effigy, rumours spread that they had also burnt the Quran, and soon after, violence broke out.
Fadnavis called the violence a “pre-planned” conspiracy. It isn’t clear if he meant that the VHP, Bajrang Dal, and Rane were a part of this plan. He also said that “Chhaava movie has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb still, everyone must keep Maharashtra peaceful."
The BJP's Hypocrisy and the Role of Cinema
This is an unprecedented event, isn’t it?
A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politician accuses content available for public consumption of causing harm but doesn’t file a FIR. The BJP cadres don’t attack cinema halls, and no one is calling for the movie to be banned. In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted the movie, which was best described by senior film critic Shubhra Gupta as “torture porn”.
We already know what happens when the content in question happens to be something that doesn’t further the BJP’s politics.
I am not arguing that Chhaava should have resulted in an FIR or that it should have been banned. Not at all.
Fadnavis’ comment has naturally resulted in a heated debate across social media about the responsibility that its lead actor Vicky Kaushal, the producer Maddock Productions, and the director Laxman Utekar have in the matter.
Those defending Kaushal say, “He’s just an actor”.
When the chief minister is unable to uphold law and order (the Baba Siddiqui murder, attack on Saif Ali Khan, Nagpur violence being recent reminders), how can an actor be blamed, they ask.
The Responsibility of a Star: Vicky Kaushal’s Agency
So, what blame or responsibility does Vicky Kaushal share in this situation?
This question is many questions.
How does the film industry work?
Which ideology, political actors, and forces have power and hegemony in India?
What has Kaushal done after the violence erupted?
Is Kaushal an adult?
Do actions have consequences?
Let’s answer the seemingly easier ones first—Vicky Kaushal, by all accounts, is an adult, and actions do have consequences. I’m not being facetious, I want to accord respect and agency to Kaushal, assume that he is an informed, even intelligent adult, and not an acrobat in a circus.
Let’s now shift focus to the central mover in 99 percent film industry projects—who is the star? Projects are “greenlit” if a star backs them. Studios constantly go to stars to ask what kind of projects they would be willing to participate in and then set the story development machinery in motion.
Simply put, the likelihood of a movie being made or not being made depends tremendously on whether a ‘star’ is willing to back it. These ‘stars’ have disproportionate control over the script and the creative process too—often more than the director and writer.
Now the penultimate question—which ideology, political actors, and forces have hegemony at present? Whose supporters can not only get away with violence but are rewarded with promotions in their political careers? The answer to that one is easy also—Hindutva and in extension, the BJP.
The Sangh Parivar's central argument for seeking power and legitimacy is that many centuries back, the Mughals looted Hindus for centuries, and the Indian Muslims alive today must be punished for the real and imagined sins of those in the past. This trope is often used to politically justify large scale violence, socio-economic discrimination, and ostracisation of Muslims.
This is not an ideological opinion or argument. Both the BJP’s critics and its supporters agree on this. The former criticises it, the latter flaunts it and argues that it is moral. It is also not an obscure fact. It is as old as India itself.
Vicky Kaushal chose to endorse and participate in a movie furthering this vicious politics. Whether it is factual or not is beside the point. A movie made in 1930s Germany about a Jew who scammed people would have had catastrophic consequences, regardless of whether it was based on facts or not.
The Consequences of Endorsing Majoritarianism
At best, Kaushal acted with ignorance. At worst, he acted with full knowledge of the Hindutva project and with the full intention of harming India’s social fabric and furthering the persecution of Indian Muslims. In the first case, his sin is reckless negligence; in the second, complicity.
In both cases, the consequences are the same. Every adult is responsible for the consequences their actions have. One could argue that regardless of the consequences, their actions were moral or immoral. An immoral act with no adverse consequences remains immoral, and vice versa. Even after the violence broke out, even after Fadnavis said that Chhaava is to blame, not once has Kaushal come out and appealed for peace.
Would it have been okay for Kaushal to have done this movie if there had not been any incident of overt violence? The answer is no. Kaushal has participated in and endorsed a politics of majoritarianism. He strengthened the weaponisation of history by those in power today. His actions have added to prejudice against innocent, and strengthened politicians who want to focus on historical grievances instead of today’s welfare needs.
On the contrary, if he had been a part of a movie which had spoken truth to power or gave voice to the marginalised, if he had made a movie against the Emergency after 1975, against Sikhs being persecuted after 1984, he would have been morally correct, even if groups of people had taken to violence as a consequence.
At this juncture, I am reminded of a song picturised on Sunil Dutt, sung by Mukesh, and written by Prem Dhawan:
“Chodo kal ki baatein, kal ki baath puraani
Naye daur mein likhenge milkar nayi kahaani
Hum hindustani, hum hindustani
Hum hindustani, hum hindustani
Aaj puraanee zanjiron ko tod chuke hain
Kya dekhen us manzil ko jo chhod chuke hain
Chaand ke dar pe jaa pahunchaa hai aaj zamaanaa
Nae jagat se hum bhee naathaa jod chuke hain.”
(The author is a lawyer and research consultant based in Mumbai. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)